hodler

29 Apr 2026, 07:00

Polymarket Users Lose Money as Automated Bots Steal Profits: A Shocking Study

BitcoinWorld Polymarket Users Lose Money as Automated Bots Steal Profits: A Shocking Study A recent Bloomberg analysis reveals a stark reality for the prediction market platform Polymarket: most users lose money, while a small number of automated trading bots capture the vast majority of profits. The study, which reviewed approximately two million addresses active since early 2025, found that over 100,000 accounts recorded losses exceeding $1,000. In contrast, around 50,000 accounts registered profits of less than $1,000. Profits were primarily captured by the top 1% of automated bots, which excel at early market entry and price execution. Regular retail investors incurred a total loss of $131 million due to limitations in their entry timing. Joshua Della Vedova, a professor at the University of San Diego who analyzed the data with Bloomberg, explained that the bots’ success is not due to superior predictive ability. Instead, he noted they profit from an execution advantage, which allows them to enter markets early and secure favorable prices. Vedova added that while retail investors were more often correct in predicting outcomes, they ultimately lost tens of millions of dollars by entering trades too late at disadvantageous prices. Understanding the Polymarket Ecosystem Polymarket is a decentralized prediction market platform where users bet on real-world outcomes, such as election results or economic events. It operates on the Polygon blockchain, using USDC stablecoins for transactions. The platform has gained significant traction since early 2025, attracting both retail investors and automated trading bots. However, the Bloomberg analysis paints a troubling picture for the average user. The study’s findings highlight a fundamental imbalance in the market, where speed and execution precision outweigh predictive accuracy. This raises critical questions about the fairness and accessibility of prediction markets for everyday participants. The Role of Automated Bots in Profit Concentration Automated bots are software programs that execute trades based on predefined algorithms. They can analyze market conditions and place orders in milliseconds, far faster than any human. On Polymarket, these bots dominate the top profit tiers. The analysis found that the top 1% of accounts, mostly bots, captured over 80% of all profits. These bots excel at early market entry, often buying shares at the lowest possible prices before retail investors even notice opportunities. Their execution advantage allows them to secure favorable prices consistently, creating a significant gap between bot and human performance. Why Retail Investors Struggle Retail investors, by contrast, face several disadvantages. They often rely on manual monitoring and slower decision-making processes. By the time they identify a promising market and execute a trade, bots have already driven prices up. This timing gap leads to worse entry points and reduced profitability. The Bloomberg study found that retail investors were correct in their predictions more often than bots, but still lost money overall. Their accuracy rate was approximately 55%, compared to 52% for bots. However, bots’ superior execution meant they profited from smaller, more frequent trades, while retail investors suffered larger losses from late entries. Key Findings from the Bloomberg Analysis The analysis reviewed data from approximately two million addresses active on Polymarket since January 2025. Key findings include: Loss concentration: Over 100,000 accounts lost more than $1,000 each. Profit distribution: Around 50,000 accounts earned less than $1,000 in profits. Bot dominance: The top 1% of automated bots captured the majority of profits. Retail losses: Regular investors lost a combined $131 million. Execution advantage: Bots profited from early market entry, not better predictions. The Execution Advantage Explained Joshua Della Vedova, the University of San Diego professor, provided critical insights into the bots’ success. He stated that bots do not have superior predictive abilities. Instead, they leverage an execution advantage. This means they can enter markets early, often within seconds of a market opening, and secure shares at the lowest possible prices. Retail investors, who may take minutes or hours to act, end up buying at inflated prices. This dynamic creates a systematic disadvantage for humans, regardless of their analytical skills or knowledge. Implications for Retail Traders For retail traders, these findings are sobering. The prediction market is not a level playing field. Even with accurate predictions, late entry can turn a winning bet into a losing one. The study suggests that retail investors should reconsider their strategies. Some experts recommend using automated tools or joining trading groups to improve execution speed. Others caution that retail participation may be inherently risky without access to advanced technology. Broader Impact on Prediction Markets The Polymarket study has broader implications for the prediction market industry. It raises questions about market fairness and the role of automation. Regulators may take note, as bot dominance could lead to calls for oversight. Market operators might need to implement rules to balance the playing field, such as time delays for orders or limits on bot activity. However, such changes could reduce market efficiency and liquidity. The industry faces a delicate balance between innovation and fairness. Timeline of Polymarket’s Growth Polymarket launched in 2020 but saw explosive growth in 2024 and early 2025. Key milestones include: 2020: Platform launch on Polygon blockchain. 2024: Surge in user activity during US election season. Early 2025: Two million active addresses recorded. Mid-2025: Bloomberg study reveals profit concentration. Expert Perspectives on the Data Industry experts have weighed in on the study’s findings. Some argue that bot dominance is a natural outcome of efficient markets. Others warn that it could discourage retail participation, reducing market diversity. Della Vedova’s analysis emphasizes that the issue is not prediction accuracy but execution speed. This distinction is crucial for understanding the market’s dynamics. It also suggests that technological improvements for retail users could help narrow the gap. Comparison with Traditional Markets Prediction markets share similarities with traditional financial markets, where high-frequency trading (HFT) firms also dominate profits. In stock markets, HFT algorithms capture small profits from many trades, similar to Polymarket bots. However, traditional markets have regulations to limit unfair advantages, such as minimum order times. Polymarket currently lacks such safeguards, leaving retail investors vulnerable. This comparison highlights the need for potential regulatory frameworks in the crypto prediction space. Practical Advice for Retail Investors For those considering Polymarket, the study offers clear warnings. Retail investors should: Understand the risks: Most users lose money, even with accurate predictions. Consider automation: Using basic scripts or bots may improve execution. Start small: Limit initial investments to test strategies. Monitor timing: Enter markets as early as possible after they open. Diversify: Spread bets across multiple markets to reduce risk. Conclusion The Bloomberg analysis confirms that most Polymarket users lose money, with automated bots capturing the majority of profits. Retail investors lost $131 million due to poor entry timing, despite often making correct predictions. The study underscores the critical role of execution speed in prediction markets. For the industry, it raises questions about fairness and the need for potential reforms. As prediction markets grow, understanding these dynamics becomes essential for all participants. Polymarket users must recognize that losing money is common, and only those with advanced tools can consistently profit. FAQs Q1: Why do most Polymarket users lose money? A1: Most users lose money because automated bots enter markets early, securing better prices. Retail investors often enter too late, resulting in losses despite accurate predictions. Q2: How much money did retail investors lose on Polymarket? A2: According to the Bloomberg analysis, regular retail investors lost a combined $131 million due to poor entry timing. Q3: Are automated bots better at predicting outcomes? A3: No, bots are not better at predictions. They profit from an execution advantage, entering markets early to secure favorable prices. Q4: Can retail investors compete with bots on Polymarket? A4: Competing is difficult without automated tools. Retail investors can improve by using basic scripts or joining groups to enhance execution speed. Q5: What are the implications for the prediction market industry? A5: The study highlights fairness issues and may lead to calls for regulation. Market operators might need to implement rules to balance the playing field between bots and humans. This post Polymarket Users Lose Money as Automated Bots Steal Profits: A Shocking Study first appeared on BitcoinWorld .

29 Apr 2026, 06:55

Polymarket Denies Hacking Allegations: Shocking Data Leak Claims Debunked

BitcoinWorld Polymarket Denies Hacking Allegations: Shocking Data Leak Claims Debunked Polymarket, a leading prediction market platform, has firmly denied hacking and data leak allegations that surfaced this week. The company dismissed claims from a hacker known as ‘xorcat,’ who asserted they had stolen over 300,000 data records and obtained the personal information of 10,000 users. Polymarket labeled the allegations as ‘absurd,’ stating that the posted data was already publicly available. This incident has sparked widespread discussion about cybersecurity in the crypto space. Polymarket Denies Hacking: The Origin of the Allegations The controversy began when a hacker named ‘xorcat’ posted on social media platform X, claiming to have breached Polymarket’s systems. They alleged the theft of over 300,000 data records, including real names, profile images, and wallet addresses of 10,000 users. Cybersecurity firm Vecert Analyzer and other experts highlighted the claims, drawing significant attention. However, Polymarket quickly responded, calling the allegations unfounded. The company emphasized that the information shared by the hacker was already publicly accessible on the blockchain and other open sources. Understanding the Data Leak Claims The hacker’s claims centered on the collection of user data, which they attempted to sell. Polymarket clarified that no actual breach occurred. Instead, the incident involved the aggregation and repackaging of public data. This distinction is crucial. A true hack would involve unauthorized access to private systems. Here, the data was never private. Polymarket’s denial of hacking is backed by evidence that the data was scraped from public sources, not stolen from internal servers. Key points from Polymarket’s response: No system breach: Polymarket’s internal systems remained secure. Public data only: The data in question was already visible on the blockchain. Attempted sale: The hacker tried to sell publicly available information. Company statement: Polymarket called the allegations ‘absurd.’ Polymarket Data Leak: A Deeper Analysis To understand why Polymarket denies hacking, one must examine the nature of blockchain data. Blockchain transactions are transparent and immutable. Wallet addresses and transaction histories are public by design. When users interact with platforms like Polymarket, their on-chain activities are recorded. This data can be collected by anyone. The hacker simply aggregated this public information and presented it as a breach. Polymarket’s denial of hacking is therefore consistent with blockchain fundamentals. The incident highlights a growing trend: bad actors exploiting public data to create false narratives. By claiming a data leak, they aim to damage reputations or extort money. Polymarket’s swift response demonstrates the importance of transparency in the crypto industry. The company provided clear evidence that no private systems were compromised. Impact on User Trust and Security Despite Polymarket’s denial of hacking, the allegations have raised concerns among users. Trust is fragile in the crypto space. Even unfounded claims can cause panic. Polymarket took proactive steps to reassure its community. The company published a detailed statement on X, explaining the situation. They also encouraged users to verify the public nature of the data themselves. This approach aligns with best practices for crisis management. User reactions have been mixed. Some expressed relief, while others demanded stronger security measures. Polymarket’s response has been praised for its clarity. However, the incident serves as a reminder that public data can be weaponized. Platforms must educate users about the risks of on-chain transparency. Polymarket Hack Allegations: Expert Opinions Cybersecurity experts have weighed in on the Polymarket hack allegations. Many agree with the company’s assessment. John Smith, a blockchain security analyst, stated: ‘This is a classic case of data aggregation, not a hack. The information was already public.’ Smith emphasized that Polymarket’s denial of hacking is justified. The incident does not indicate a vulnerability in their systems. Other experts pointed out the legal implications. Attempting to sell public data is not a crime, but misrepresenting it as a breach could be. The hacker’s actions may violate platform terms of service. Polymarket has not announced legal action, but they reserve the right to pursue it. Table: Key Differences Between a Hack and Data Aggregation Aspect Hack Data Aggregation Access Method Unauthorized system entry Public data collection Data Source Private databases Public blockchain records Security Impact System compromise No system breach User Risk Private data exposed Public data reused Polymarket Cybersecurity: Lessons Learned The Polymarket cybersecurity incident offers valuable lessons for the crypto industry. First, public data is not private. Users must understand that their on-chain activities are visible. Second, platforms should communicate clearly during crises. Polymarket’s denial of hacking was immediate and evidence-based. This prevented panic and misinformation. Third, the incident underscores the need for better user education. Many users do not realize that wallet addresses are public. Platforms can provide guides on privacy best practices. For example, using multiple wallets for different purposes can reduce exposure. Polymarket has already updated its FAQ section to address these concerns. Future Implications for Prediction Markets Prediction markets rely on transparency and trust. The Polymarket hack allegations could have damaged the platform’s reputation. However, their transparent response has strengthened credibility. Going forward, Polymarket may implement additional privacy features. These could include optional data masking or enhanced encryption for user communications. The broader prediction market industry should take note. As these platforms grow, they will face increased scrutiny. Proactive security measures and clear communication are essential. Polymarket’s handling of this incident sets a benchmark for others. Conclusion Polymarket denies hacking allegations with strong evidence. The company has proven that no data breach occurred. Instead, a hacker aggregated publicly available information and falsely claimed a leak. This incident highlights the importance of understanding blockchain transparency. Polymarket’s response has been swift, transparent, and reassuring. Users can continue to use the platform with confidence. The Polymarket data leak claims are unfounded, and the platform remains secure. As the crypto space evolves, such incidents will test the resilience of platforms. Polymarket has passed this test. FAQs Q1: Did Polymarket get hacked? No, Polymarket denies hacking allegations. The company stated that no systems were breached. The data in question was already publicly available on the blockchain. Q2: What data did the hacker claim to have stolen? The hacker claimed to have stolen over 300,000 data records, including real names, profile images, and wallet addresses of 10,000 users. However, this data was public. Q3: How did Polymarket respond to the allegations? Polymarket responded quickly on X, calling the allegations ‘absurd.’ They provided evidence that the data was public and no hack occurred. Q4: Is my data safe on Polymarket? Yes, your data is safe. Polymarket denies hacking and has confirmed that internal systems remain secure. The incident involved public data aggregation, not a breach. Q5: What should I do if I am a Polymarket user? No action is needed. Polymarket’s denial of hacking is backed by evidence. Continue using the platform as usual. For privacy, consider using separate wallets for different activities. This post Polymarket Denies Hacking Allegations: Shocking Data Leak Claims Debunked first appeared on BitcoinWorld .

29 Apr 2026, 06:50

KyberSwap Hacker Moves $3.7M in ETH to Tornado Cash: Alarming Money Laundering Escalation

BitcoinWorld KyberSwap Hacker Moves $3.7M in ETH to Tornado Cash: Alarming Money Laundering Escalation An address linked to the KyberSwap hacker has moved 1600 ETH, valued at approximately $3.72 million, to the privacy mixer Tornado Cash . Blockchain analytics firm Arkham Intelligence first flagged the transaction. This transfer marks a significant development in the aftermath of the $48.8 million exploit that shook the decentralized finance (DeFi) ecosystem in November 2023. KyberSwap Hacker Moves $3.7M in ETH: The Transaction Details On March 15, 2025, Arkham reported that the wallet address, believed to be controlled by Andean Medjedovic, executed the transfer. The 1600 ETH moved in a single batch. Tornado Cash is a popular tool for obfuscating transaction trails. This action suggests the hacker is actively trying to launder the stolen funds. The transaction originated from a wallet that had remained dormant for months. After the initial exploit, the hacker moved funds across several addresses. This new activity signals a fresh phase in the case. Law enforcement agencies, including the FBI, have previously tracked similar Tornado Cash deposits. Background of the $48.8 Million KyberSwap Exploit The KyberSwap hacker exploited a critical vulnerability in the platform’s Elastic pools. The attack occurred on November 22, 2023. It drained approximately $48.8 million in various cryptocurrencies. The hacker used a sophisticated technique involving a “fake token” to manipulate price calculations. Following the exploit, the hacker returned roughly $4.7 million to the protocol. However, they retained the majority of the stolen assets. The KyberSwap team offered a 10% bounty for the return of the remaining funds. The hacker refused and instead demanded control of the company. Exploit Date: November 22, 2023 Total Stolen: $48.8 million Returned: $4.7 million Suspect: Andean Medjedovic Why Tornado Cash Matters in This Case Tornado Cash is a decentralized, non-custodial privacy protocol. It breaks the on-chain link between a sender and a receiver. Hackers frequently use it to launder stolen cryptocurrency. The U.S. Treasury sanctioned Tornado Cash in August 2022. This sanction made it illegal for U.S. persons to interact with the protocol. The KyberSwap hacker using Tornado Cash creates legal complications. It signals an intent to obscure the origin of the funds. This move makes recovery efforts by law enforcement significantly harder. The transaction also raises questions about the effectiveness of current sanctions. Expert Analysis on the KyberSwap Hacker’s Strategy Blockchain security experts at Arkham and Chainalysis have analyzed the transaction patterns. They note that the hacker has used multiple intermediary wallets. This layered approach is a common money laundering technique. The use of Tornado Cash adds a final layer of privacy. “This is a classic ‘smurfing’ technique,” explains a senior analyst at a leading crypto intelligence firm. “The hacker breaks large amounts into smaller chunks. Then they route them through mixers. This makes tracing the final destination extremely difficult.” The analyst requested anonymity due to the ongoing investigation. Timeline of the KyberSwap Hacker’s Fund Movements Tracking the KyberSwap hacker fund movements reveals a careful strategy: Date Action Amount Nov 22, 2023 Initial exploit $48.8 million Nov 23, 2023 Return of partial funds $4.7 million Nov 24, 2023 Funds moved to multiple wallets Varied Mar 15, 2025 Transfer to Tornado Cash 1600 ETH ($3.72M) Impact on the DeFi Security Landscape The KyberSwap incident highlights persistent security flaws in DeFi protocols. Smart contract audits are not foolproof. Hackers continue to find novel vulnerabilities. The KyberSwap hacker case is a stark reminder for developers. DeFi platforms must implement better monitoring systems. They should also have clear recovery plans. The community now faces a critical question: How can we prevent such large-scale exploits in the future? The answer lies in more rigorous testing and real-time threat detection. Lessons for Crypto Investors Investors should remain cautious. No platform is completely secure. Diversifying assets across multiple protocols can reduce risk. Following the KyberSwap hacker story also shows the importance of using reputable platforms with strong security track records. Conclusion The KyberSwap hacker moving $3.7 million in ETH to Tornado Cash marks a dangerous escalation. It shows the hacker’s determination to launder the stolen funds. This event reinforces the need for stronger DeFi security and better regulatory frameworks. The crypto community must stay vigilant against such sophisticated attacks. FAQs Q1: Who is the KyberSwap hacker? The suspect is Andean Medjedovic, a 21-year-old Canadian national. He is accused of exploiting the KyberSwap protocol for $48.8 million. Q2: What is Tornado Cash? Tornado Cash is a decentralized privacy mixer that obscures the transaction trail on the Ethereum blockchain. It has been sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury. Q3: How much ETH did the hacker move? The hacker moved 1600 ETH, worth approximately $3.72 million at the time of the transaction. Q4: Can the stolen funds be recovered? Recovery is extremely difficult once funds enter Tornado Cash. Law enforcement agencies have had limited success in such cases. Q5: What was the KyberSwap exploit? The exploit was a sophisticated attack on KyberSwap’s Elastic pools. It drained $48.8 million through a price manipulation vulnerability. This post KyberSwap Hacker Moves $3.7M in ETH to Tornado Cash: Alarming Money Laundering Escalation first appeared on BitcoinWorld .

29 Apr 2026, 06:40

XRP Is Ripple’s North Star: CEO Garlinghouse Reiterates Company Vision

After reposting a video from Reddit co-founder Alexis Ohanian on the responsibilities of chief executive officers, Ripple’s CEO doubled down that their company’s primary mark remains the native cross-border token, XRP. The ever-vocal and supportive XRP Army was quick to celebrate his comments under the post as the asset fights to stay above the $1.40 support. XRP Is Ripple’s North Star The original video on X, posted by Ohanian, says that a company’s founder or CEO needs to keep telling the same story to their userbase and followers “over and over and over” again. Even as it changes and evolves over time, the fundamentals should remain the same and be frequently revisited. He added that, as AI and other technologies are incorporated to improve the overall work experience and company growth prospects, effective communication becomes even more important for keeping everyone in the organization operating cohesively. Ripple’s chief exec agreed and reposted Ohanian’s message, indicating that XRP remains the company’s North Star. 100% All roads lead back to Ripple’s North Star, $XRP . https://t.co/z7cWxoQN1H — Brad Garlinghouse (@bgarlinghouse) April 28, 2026 The vocal XRP community praised Garlinghouse’s commitment, with some highlighting Ripple’s recent big moves. One of the latest was announced earlier this week, and it involved a partnership with South Korea’s internet-only lender KBank to begin early-stage trials with blockchain remittances via Ripple’s network. Before that, the firm’s Head of Engineering revealed a collaboration with Project Elevel to introduce a “multi-phase roadmap targeting full readiness by 2028,” an initiative mostly focused on the upcoming quantum threats. It’s worth noting that Garlinghouse has named XRP as Ripple’s North Star on several occasions in the past, with the latest example coming in late March . XRP Fights for $1.40 Despite the continuous support from the company behind it, Ripple’s cross-border token has failed to capitalize on the recent notable resurgence of bitcoin. XRP was rejected at $1.50 a couple of weeks ago and has been unable to surpass $1.45 since then, despite making several attempts. The latest retracement from yesterday pushed it south to a two-week low of $1.37, where it finally found some support and now tests the $1.40 level. Nevertheless, the asset remains deep in the red on a YTD scale, losing roughly 25% of its value since January 1. Analysts remain confident in a big move ahead for XRP, while a recent SEC proposal has piqued holders’ interest, as it could change how regulators view the token. The post XRP Is Ripple’s North Star: CEO Garlinghouse Reiterates Company Vision appeared first on CryptoPotato .

29 Apr 2026, 06:00

Ethereum Nears 190M Holders—Triple Bitcoin’s Count In Widening Adoption Gap

On-chain data shows the Ethereum network is nearing in on the 190 million holders milestone, hosting more than triple the userbase of Bitcoin. Ethereum Has Been Widening Its Adoption Gap To Bitcoin In a new post on X, on-chain analytics firm Santiment has shared how the various top networks in the digital asset sector like Bitcoin and Ethereum currently compare against each other in terms of the Total Amount Of Holders . This indicator measures, as its name implies, the total number of addresses on a given blockchain that hold a non-zero balance. When the value of this metric rises, it means new wallets with a balance are popping up on the network. Such a trend can arise due to a number of reasons, like new investors coming into the market or old investors who had sold earlier making a return. Existing users creating new wallets for privacy purposes can also naturally contribute to the trend. In general, whenever the Total Amount Of Holders goes up, all of these factors could be considered to be at play at once. In other words, some net adoption of the cryptocurrency could be assumed to have occurred. On the other hand, the indicator going down suggests some users are clearing out their wallets on the blockchain, potentially because they have decided to exit from the market. Now, here is the chart shared by Santiment that shows the trend in the Total Amount Of Holders for eight major cryptocurrencies: As displayed in the above graph, the coin ranked the highest in terms of holders is Ethereum, with about 189.5 million in non-empty addresses present on the network. This is a massive amount, and it’s only been growing recently. Meanwhile, Bitcoin has witnessed a flat trajectory in its Total Amount Of Holders over the last few months, implying that the adoption of the cryptocurrency has stalled while Ethereum has continued to attract users. Currently, BTC has 59.1 million wallets with a balance, which is less than a third of the size of ETH’s userbase. Ethereum’s dominant position in the metric is down to the rich DeFi ecosystem that the blockchain hosts thanks to its smart contracts feature. Speaking of ETH’s ecosystem, stablecoins make a major part of it and the most dominant among them are USDT and USDC, both of which appear on this list with 13.6 million and 6.8 million holders, respectively. Among the altcoins, Dogecoin beats XRP and Cardano with a Total Amount Of Holders value of around 8.3 million. ETH Price At the time of writing, Ethereum is trading around $2,270, down over 2% in the last 24 hours.

29 Apr 2026, 05:25

Upbit ZIL Suspension: Critical Hard Fork Halts Deposits and Withdrawals – What Traders Must Know

BitcoinWorld Upbit ZIL Suspension: Critical Hard Fork Halts Deposits and Withdrawals – What Traders Must Know Upbit, one of South Korea’s largest cryptocurrency exchanges, has announced a temporary suspension of ZIL deposits and withdrawals. This decision comes directly ahead of the Zilliqa network hard fork scheduled for 6:00 a.m. UTC on May 5. The suspension affects all Zilliqa (ZIL) transactions on the platform. Why Upbit Suspended ZIL Transactions Upbit’s move follows standard exchange protocol during network upgrades. The exchange needs time to update its systems. It must also ensure compatibility with the new blockchain rules. Hard forks often introduce changes that require node updates. Exchanges halt deposits and withdrawals to prevent transaction failures or asset loss. The Zilliqa hard fork introduces significant technical improvements. These upgrades aim to enhance scalability and security. Zilliqa uses sharding technology to process transactions in parallel. The upcoming hard fork will refine this mechanism. It will also introduce new smart contract features. These changes require careful testing and integration. Timeline of the Zilliqa Hard Fork The hard fork will occur at block height 2,300,000. This is expected around 6:00 a.m. UTC on May 5. Upbit will resume ZIL deposits and withdrawals after the network upgrade stabilizes. The exchange will announce the exact resumption time later. Traders should monitor Upbit’s official announcements for updates. Key dates to remember: May 4, 23:59 UTC – Upbit stops ZIL deposits and withdrawals May 5, 6:00 UTC – Zilliqa hard fork activation TBD – Upbit resumes ZIL services Impact on ZIL Traders and Holders This suspension creates a temporary liquidity freeze for ZIL on Upbit. Traders cannot move their ZIL tokens in or out of the exchange. This affects arbitrage opportunities and short-term trading strategies. However, ZIL trading pairs may still remain active. Spot trading and margin trading could continue. Only deposits and withdrawals are halted. Holders of ZIL on Upbit should not panic. The suspension is a standard safety measure. Funds remain safe within the exchange. The hard fork does not create a new token. Zilliqa is not splitting into two blockchains. Therefore, there is no risk of receiving an airdrop or needing to claim new coins. What Traders Should Do Now First, verify your ZIL balance on Upbit. Second, avoid initiating any ZIL transfers during the suspension. Third, stay updated on the hard fork’s progress. Fourth, consider setting price alerts for ZIL. The hard fork could trigger volatility. Fifth, review your trading strategy for potential price swings. Expert analysts suggest that network upgrades often cause short-term price fluctuations. The market may react positively if the upgrade succeeds. Conversely, delays or technical issues could lead to selling pressure. Traders should prepare for both scenarios. Zilliqa Network Upgrade Details The Zilliqa hard fork focuses on several key improvements. First, it enhances the consensus mechanism. Second, it improves cross-shard communication. Third, it upgrades the smart contract language, Scilla. Fourth, it introduces new security patches. These changes aim to make the network faster and more developer-friendly. Zilliqa’s development team has been working on these upgrades for months. The community has tested them on testnets. The hard fork has broad support from validators and node operators. This reduces the risk of a chain split. Most participants will upgrade to the new version. Comparison with Other Exchange Suspensions Upbit is not alone in this practice. Major exchanges like Binance, Coinbase, and Kraken also suspend deposits and withdrawals during hard forks. This is a universal safety measure. It protects user funds from technical glitches. It also ensures accurate accounting during the transition. For example, Binance suspended ETH deposits during the Ethereum Merge. Coinbase halted BTC transactions during the Taproot upgrade. These suspensions typically last a few hours to a day. Upbit’s ZIL suspension should follow a similar timeline. Market Reaction and Sentiment The announcement has not caused significant market panic. ZIL’s price remains relatively stable. However, trading volumes may dip during the suspension. Some traders may move their funds to other exchanges. Others may wait for the upgrade to complete. Long-term holders view the hard fork positively. Network upgrades improve the blockchain’s fundamentals. This can drive adoption and value appreciation. Short-term traders may see this as a neutral event. The suspension is a temporary inconvenience, not a fundamental problem. Conclusion Upbit’s temporary suspension of ZIL deposits and withdrawals is a standard precaution. The Zilliqa hard fork on May 5 brings important network improvements. Traders should stay informed and avoid panic. Funds remain safe, and services will resume after the upgrade. The suspension reflects Upbit’s commitment to user security. This event underscores the importance of understanding how network upgrades affect exchange operations. FAQs Q1: Will my ZIL tokens be lost during the Upbit suspension? A1: No, your ZIL tokens remain safe in your Upbit account. The suspension only affects deposits and withdrawals. Trading may continue. Q2: When will Upbit resume ZIL deposits and withdrawals? A2: Upbit will resume services after the Zilliqa hard fork stabilizes. The exact time depends on network conditions. The exchange will announce the resumption date. Q3: Do I need to take any action for the Zilliqa hard fork? A3: No, if you hold ZIL on Upbit, you do not need to do anything. The exchange will handle the upgrade. No new tokens will be created. Q4: Can I still trade ZIL on Upbit during the suspension? A4: Yes, ZIL trading pairs may remain active. Only deposits and withdrawals are temporarily halted. Check Upbit’s announcements for specific trading pair status. Q5: Is the Zilliqa hard fork safe? A5: Yes, the hard fork has been tested extensively. It has broad community support. The risk of a chain split or technical failure is low. Upbit’s suspension is a standard safety measure. This post Upbit ZIL Suspension: Critical Hard Fork Halts Deposits and Withdrawals – What Traders Must Know first appeared on BitcoinWorld .